Protests Opposing Geographic and State Licensing Requirements

B-198952,B-199166,B-199652,B-200494,B-200514: Jun 9, 1981

Additional Materials:


Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800

A firm filed several protests opposing geographic and State licensing requirements used by the Forest Service in solicitations for surveying services. Since the protests were virtually identical, GAO considered them as a unit protest against a standard Forest Service practice. The solicitation requirements that the protester objected to included: (1) the requirement that the surveys be conducted by surveyors that were licensed by the State in which the survey was to be conducted; and (2) the fact that eligible offerers were limited to those survey or engineering firms which have offices or facilities within a specified distance of the job site. The protester further contended that the State license requirement was unnecessary since the surveys were to be conducted for the Federal Government on Federal land and are therefore exempt from State law. GAO held that it was reasonable to require State licensing of surveyors involved in Federal contracts because of the possible effect such surveys could have on properties which have common boundaries with national forests. Further, surveys are required to be registered with the State, and this makes the State involved an interested party. The protester also contended that the distance requirements were not valid since the terrain in the area involved is not unique to that part of the country. GAO believed that the Forest Service's actual need was for surveyors with local knowledge and experience, rather than for surveyors who were located in the immediate vicinity. The protest on this issue was sustained, but no corrective action was recommended since the work was almost completed. GAO did recommend that a provision be added to future procurements allowing offerers to demonstrate their local knowledge in their technical proposals.

Mar 20, 2018

Mar 19, 2018

  • Ampcus, Inc.
    We deny the protest.
  • AMAR Health IT, LLC
    We dismiss the protest because our Office does not have jurisdiction to entertain protests of task orders issued under civilian agency multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts that are valued at less than $10 million.
  • Centurum, Inc.--Costs
    We grant the request.

Mar 15, 2018

  • ORBIS Sibro, Inc.
    We sustain the protest in part and deny it in part.

Mar 14, 2018

Mar 13, 2018

  • Interoperability Clearinghouse
    We dismiss the protest because the protester, a not-for-profit entity, is not an interested party to challenge this sole-source award to an Alaska Native Corporation under the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 8(a) program.
  • Yang Enterprises, Inc.
    We dismiss the protest.

Looking for more? Browse all our products here